Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×
Censorship Communications United States Your Rights Online Apple News

FBI Gripes "We Can't Read Everyone's Secrets" (reuters.com) 175

New submitter rdukb writes: FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee that investigators still can't access the phone contents of one of the San Bernadino killers. He went on to argue that the phenomenon of communications "going dark" due to more sophisticated technology and wider use of encryption is "overwhelmingly affecting" law enforcement operations, including, not only the San Bernadino murders, but also investigations into other murders, car accidents, drug trafficking and the proliferation of child pornography. This might increase pressure on Apple to loosen the backdoor restrictions. Will the industry relent and allow Government access to data from these devices?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI Gripes "We Can't Read Everyone's Secrets"

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @05:56PM (#51473713)

    What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

    Um...maybe fifteen minutes after the first OS release, the Darknet will have utilities published to take advantage of them?

    Captcha: "contempt"

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @05:56PM (#51473717)

    You will just force me to find other means to encrypt, making my device even DARKER than it already is...

    • by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt AT nerdflat DOT com> on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @08:19PM (#51474915) Journal
      The idea, I imagine they believe, is that when you have to go to suffficient lengths to keep your data confidential, you will actually draw even *more* attention in the process, and even if you are not guilty of anything in particular, may find yourself more heavily scrutinized by the powers that be than the average individual.
      • The idea, I imagine they believe, is that when you have to go to suffficient lengths to keep your data confidential, you will actually draw even *more* attention in the process, and even if you are not guilty of anything in particular, may find yourself more heavily scrutinized by the powers that be than the average individual.

        The use of strong encryption in no way implies that you are "guilty" of anything or have "done something wrong."

        It means you have taken proper and necessary steps to secure your data against unauthorized access. That is what all good digital citizens should be doing. Many don't, and that's why we see stories every week about a large data breach of names, addresses, social security numbers, etc. being handed over to criminals.

        Since everyone is subject to suspicionless, unwarranted surveillance, it doesn't se

        • by mark-t ( 151149 )

          The use of strong encryption in no way implies that you are "guilty" of anything or have "done something wrong."

          I didn't suggest that it did.

          In the eyes of those who might believe that if one is doing nothing wrong they have nothing to hide (which is false, but there are still people who believe believe it), however, it might at the very least give them an incentive to more closely scrutinize that person's activities, at least moreso than the average person who follows the government status quo procedures

        • by Rakarra ( 112805 )

          The use of strong encryption in no way implies that you are "guilty" of anything or have "done something wrong."

          The FBI under Hoover learned that everyone is "guilty" of something, whether it's illegal or not, and that it's very helpful to have such information on-hand.

  • No (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @05:56PM (#51473723)

    People made that mistake before. We learned our lesson. Government can't be trusted. They demonstrate it a new way every day.

    • Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @06:03PM (#51473785)

      "Overwhelmingly affecting" law enforcement. Really? What did they do when people didn't have technology and just whispered their secrets to each other? Did they whine that they couldn't hear the secrets and tried to pass laws that required everyone to shout? We have always had secrets that law enforcement could never figure out and we always will. There have always been unsolved cases, and there always will be. Law enforcement has always whined that it could do more if only they had more power, and they always will.

      • Re:No (Score:5, Funny)

        by Sperbels ( 1008585 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @06:22PM (#51473931)
        If you people would only let us slowly tear the flesh off of our suspect, getting a confession would be that much easier. It's like you guys want more crime.
        • If you people would only let us slowly tear the flesh off of our suspect, getting a confession would be that much easier. It's like you guys want more crime.

          I believe the taser is the torture device du jour for LEOs these days.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        I hope encryption is "overwhelmingly affecting" law enforcement's efforts to create a panopticon and collect bulk data. That means we are getting safer, we are winning the second crypto war.

    • Ah, the founding fathers would be proud. Now if we can just get the REST of the constitution back in favor, that would be great.
    • Re:No (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt AT nerdflat DOT com> on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @08:28PM (#51475017) Journal

      What I think is more interesting is that even *IF* the government could be trusted, it would still be a bad idea to give them unfettered access, because if they can read your confidential data, however benign they may claim their intentions to be, then so can somebody with less benevolent motivations. The net result is that instead of making things easier for law enforcement, it will actually made things harder because law enforcement would then be further burdened with trying to also protect those who are innocent from predatory criminals who are exploiting the weaker security that would be made mandatory.

      Obviously if you don't trust the government in the first place, this is clearly a bad idea.... but it is interesting, I think, to note that even if the government *COULD* be trusted, it still works out to an overall bad idea, with a net negative benefit for absolutely everyone, both the people *AND* the government. The only ones who would really come out ahead are the ones who disregard the law.

  • Boo Hoo!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fred911 ( 83970 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @06:00PM (#51473761)

    "overwhelmingly affecting" law enforcement operations"

      Including extra-legal warrantless, domestic, mass surveillance. Go cry somewhere else, the US intelligence
    complex made this bed, now go lie in it.

      We need more end to end encryption to be used as a daily matter of fact, because it's been proven time and time again you aren't trustable.

  • more FBI lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dltaylor ( 7510 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @06:00PM (#51473765)

    FBI directors lie to Congress as part of their normal job duties.

    This is just more of the same.

    • Re:more FBI lies (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @06:21PM (#51473927)

      Well, now that the FBI employee directory is out. Concerned citizens can call or email the FBI Director directly, to voice their concerns.

    • FBI directors lie to Congress as part of their normal job duties.

      So do you, so why do you expect others to behave differently?
      This is part of the problem, instead of expecting our teachers, coaches, priests, police, politicians etc to be immune to human behaviour, we should expect it and take appropriate precautions.

  • Dear FBI (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @06:07PM (#51473815)

    Dear FBI,
    Backdoors will only let you catch the dumbest of dumb criminals. Encryption exists, you can't uninvent it. Taking default encryption away, hurts the privacy of the innocent and does nothing to stop the bad guys from using their own encryption. You can't have a backdoor without the possibility that others will figure out how to access that backdoor too. Just deal with it already and stop trying to destroy security.

    • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      Cough, cough, how about this
      If you really wanted to interrogate them that much, then maybe you should not have shot them to bits.
      Surely you don't want the evidence to prosecute dead people?
      Maybe, might be fishing expedition are no excuse (no bullshit with 6 degrees of separation means you can investigate everyone on the planet).

      They have got the individuals and every weapon and ammo and residence, a field mine of DNA to track down and you will get far more from the DNA than you will the phone. You know

    • Dear FBI, Backdoors will only let you catch the dumbest of dumb criminals.

      That might be good enough.
      My bank is full of clever criminals who fleece 0.1% here and 0.2% there to make themselves rich and get away with it. The stupid crims will hold a gun to your face and may shoot you for $50. Given the choice, I can live with the smart crims.

  • Hiring Fail (Score:5, Insightful)

    by randalware ( 720317 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @06:08PM (#51473829) Journal

    The police are not hiring some people because they have too high of an IQ.

    Then the people they do hire, whine "Can't you make this easier ? It's too hard !"

    What do you want next ?

    Master keys to all physical locks ?
    People must use their birth names ?
    No cars that can exceed 30 mph ?
    Everyone wear hi-viz clothes and flashing lights ?
    Nation ID numbers tattooed on your cheeks ? all four cheeks ?

    If it was an easy job, stopping crooks, all our bankers, lawyers & politicians would be incarcerated.

    • The police are not hiring some people because they have too high of an IQ.

      Then the people they do hire, whine "Can't you make this easier ? It's too hard !"

      What do you want next ?

      Master keys to all physical locks ?
      People must use their birth names ?
      No cars that can exceed 30 mph ?
      Everyone wear hi-viz clothes and flashing lights ?
      Nation ID numbers tattooed on your cheeks ? all four cheeks ?

      If it was an easy job, stopping crooks, all our bankers, lawyers & politicians would be incarcerated.

      Master Keys - Wanted but all Internet Tech companies know that this is fatal to their business model.
      No cars that can exceed 30 mph - See Self Driving Cars. Once we have you in a self driving car, regulating speed , route is easy.
      hi-viz clothes and flashing lights ? - See Japan
      National ID numbers tattooed on your cheeks - Close but see Real ID legislation that was passed without debate in congress as a rider.

    • What do you want next ?

      Master keys to all physical locks ?

      Already got those, they're called lock picks, and the police can't even use them, they have to ram people's door in instead.

      The crooks, on the other hand, are very good at using lock picks.

    • Then the people they do hire, whine "Can't you make this easier ? It's too hard !"

      Isn't it natural to want to make your job easier? I've never heard a trench digger ask for a smaller shovel, or surgeon say to put the implements away, I'll do this one with my bare hands...

  • by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @06:21PM (#51473923)

    FBI director says investigators unable to unlock San Bernardino killer's phone content

    things one needs to unlock a smartphone:
    * fingerprint (sometimes) (difficulty: invalid)
    * dump the flash memory (difficulty: hobbyist)
    * to avoid lockout, have machines emulate the phone and try every combination to unlock the phone (difficulty: developer)

    conclusion: the investigators had a technician unlock the phone in less than an hour

    DO NOT BELIEVE HIS LIES.

    • to avoid lockout, have machines emulate the phone and try every combination to unlock the phone (difficulty: developer)

      It's not that it's difficult, it's just that it requires more time than the heat death of the universe to execute.

      I don't deny the FBI director's assertion that they were unable to decrypt the phone; I deny his assertion that their failure constitutes any kind of problem.

      • It's not that it's difficult, it's just that it requires more time than the heat death of the universe to execute.

        Eh...most phones I've seen limit your key to a 4-digit pin. So we're really talking 10,000 combinations, and that's without taking in consideration the non-uniform distribution [popsci.com] of pins people choose.

        • by cfalcon ( 779563 )

          Phones don't need to be wiretap friendly, you have no obligation to forfeit privacy, and the constitution guarantees your right to privacy and free speech.

          With that said, the phones are not constructed idiotically, and will wipe / key dump if attacked naively with brute force. Additionally, I don't know which phones are limited to 4 character passphrases, but it is sure as FUCK not "most". Android users can set a password, Apple users can set a password. Maybe some trivially untrustworthy shit limits you

        • by guruevi ( 827432 )

          The way the chips works, it isn't really that simple. The PIN unlocks a larger cryptographic hash. If you enter 10 wrong pins, the chip deletes it's "memory" of this hash.

          The crypto-chip and the key verification are one unit, any form of tampering (opening the device, removing the chip/power etc) could probably trigger a wipe as well. I think the only way of doing it (if there are no tamper controls), would be to use perhaps an electron microscope and remove layer by layer of the chip until you can read out

          • by Cederic ( 9623 )

            So I can wipe peoples iPhones by entering a bad pin ten times?

            Awesome. I'm going to get sacked.

            • by guruevi ( 827432 )

              Yes, it actually works if you have hours of time to do it. There is a progressive time lockout. So after 3 attempts, you get 1 minute timeout, this gets progressively worse as after 8 and 9 attempts it's an hour per attempt so you'll spend ~2-3 hours on the process.

            • If you store important stuff on an iDevice, without any sort of backup, you will lose it. I don't understand the security behind the iCloud backups, but nobody's claimed to be able to crack that.

        • Ten thousand combinations, and it's easy to set an iPhone to wipe after ten unsuccessful attempts to enter the PIN, so the chance is roughly one in a thousand, perhaps one in a hundred for some given non-uniform distributions. You'll lose everything on the device, but you should always have that backed up.

          The interesting thing about an iPhone, cryptographically, is that the key needs a secret key embedded in a chip that's hardened so it would be extremely difficult or impossible to retrieve the key. It

      • It's not that it's difficult, it's just that it requires more time than the heat death of the universe to execute.

        to crack the AES encryption: yes. to crack smartphone security: no.

      • to avoid lockout, have machines emulate the phone and try every combination to unlock the phone (difficulty: developer)

        It's not that it's difficult, it's just that it requires more time than the heat death of the universe to execute.

        I don't deny the FBI director's assertion that they were unable to decrypt the phone; I deny his assertion that their failure constitutes any kind of problem.

        The average user has a 4-6 digit pin, even if it is 8 or 10 digits you are looking at a few hours at most to crack it, You aren't searching for a 128 bit or 256 bit key here, just the users password to unlock.

    • by Cyberax ( 705495 )
      Nope. Doesn't work like this:
      1) Flash memory in iPhones is encrypted with a strong random key.
      2) The key is contained only in RAM and inside the TPM module that also does fingerprint recognition.
      3) The key can be released if the correct PIN is entered. However, the key is irrevocably destroyed by the TPM module if you try more than 6 wrong PINs.

      In conclusion, pretty much the only way to unlock a modern iPhone when its owner is dead is to have the fingerprint available.
      • 2) The key is contained only in RAM and inside the TPM module that also does fingerprint recognition.

        i wouldn't be surprised if...
        1) Infineon had a way to subvert their own security
        2) FBI decapped the chip to retrieve the key. you can edit silicon circuits with a Focused Ion Beam. it's pricey and slow but it can be done.

        • by Cyberax ( 705495 )
          TPM chips are designed to withstand such attacks by using distributed storage. I really doubt that you can pull it off even in the best lab. And even then the cost of doing it will probably make sense only for highest-grade intelligence, not regular terrorist investigations.
          • TPM chips are designed to withstand such attacks by using distributed storage. I really doubt that you can pull it off even in the best lab. And even then the cost of doing it will probably make sense only for highest-grade intelligence, not regular terrorist investigations.

            oh please. all they have to do is disable the self-destruct/counter mechanism and the rest is a brute force attack. i'm sure Infineon even has a backdoor mechanism to disable it. I doubt Apple is even using TPM 2.0 which makes this all moot because TPM 1.2 is a joke.

    • It's not as simple as that, the following was from a fellow slashdotter on a different post, I sent a copy to friends because I found it so interesting. Unfortuanately I did not keep a copy of WHO he was, my apologies to him for posting it again without attributing it to him.

      You mistake an iPhone's unlock code with the iPhone's encryption key. the iPhones do typically use a 4-6 digit pin as an unlock code. The user also has the ability to create a full alphanumeric password for the unlock code as well. How

    • The last option you mention, creating an emulated copy of the phone, is ultimately the most likely scenario the FBI will use in the future.

      They can simply copy the contents of the phone, copy any IDs or chip based encryption keys, throw it into a virtualized environment and then send tons of possible combinations at it.

      In the end, the fingerprint scanner is probably the easiest method to break. The FBI already has a huge database of fingerprints then can just randomly throw at the virtualized phone, o
  • Will the industry relent and allow Government access to data from these devices?

    If they or any company does, then they should be boycotted until they go bankrupt. It'll never end. Even if the government got access to every single device immediately, it would never be enough for them. Next they'd be pushing for being above any basic civil or human rights, and be able to use at will any torture techniques they felt like to pry 'secrets' out of peoples' brains, too. Ironically no one would ever be safe ever again, more fearful of the people who were once supposed to protect them than they

    • If they or any company does, then they should be boycotted until they go bankrupt.

      You mean like Microsoft, with Windows 10 which communicates with dozens of servers even when you turn telemetry off? [slashdot.org]

      • Yep, boycotting them too, but for different reasons. Don't know (or care) if they're sharing all that data with the government or not, just boycotting them because they're a bunch of dicks.
    • Will the industry relent and allow Government access to data from these devices?

      If they or any company does, then they should be boycotted until they go bankrupt.

      What if getting access to one of these devices would save your family's lives?
      I'm not supporting the abuse of power here, and put the bad cops to the side for a sec, we all know that routine. Ultimately, there are bad people out there who want to kill us, and it the function of law enforcement to stop them. Rather than continually hate on authorities, I'd be more interested in hearing what possible solutions exist for a law enforcement to function within the expectations of society. Because you can bet as

      • There's a legal saying that "hard cases make bad law". I can come up with situations where people's lives will be saved for any violation of civil liberties you care to name. Heck, even torture can work if the information you seek is easily verifiable but not obtainable (something like NP problems). In the meantime, any way to crack my iPhone can be used by bad guys as well as good guys.

        I understand that you're a coward, and have sympathy, but you're talking about giving up privacy for an infinitesima

        • There's a legal saying that "hard cases make bad law".

          Oh there's a saying? Oh well, you automatically win then.

          In the meantime, any way to crack my iPhone can be used by bad guys as well as good guys.

          Ooh they'll crack you phone and then what? See photos you took of yourself with your willy in your hand?

          I understand that you're a coward, and have sympathy, but you're talking about giving up privacy for an infinitesimal increase in security against a particular unlikely threat.

          No I'm not. But nice attempt at a strawman.
          Even though I spelt it out quite clearly the first time I'll do it again for your benefit
          Rather than continually hate on authorities, I'd be more interested in hearing what possible solutions exist for a law enforcement to function within the expectations of society.

  • Archer (Score:4, Funny)

    by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M ( 4212163 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @06:22PM (#51473939)

    This might increase pressure on Apple to loosen the backdoor restrictions.

    Phrasing!

  • by dfn5 ( 524972 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @06:23PM (#51473949) Journal
    I read the article and no where do I see anyone quoted as saying "We Can't Read Everyone's Secrets". I do see "We still have one of those killer's phones that we have not been able to open," but I suppose that isn't as shocking.
  • They are only saying this to try and convince the bad guys they are "safe".

  • by timholman ( 71886 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @06:31PM (#51474019)

    If James Comey thinks that the FBI could keep their backdoor decryption key secure, perhaps I could call him at his office phone using the FBI directory that just got uploaded to the net, and discuss it with him. :-)

    The FBI and the DoJ can't even keep their own databases safe from a social hack. A backdoor key would be in the hands of China and Russia before the week was out.

    • If James Comey thinks that the FBI could keep their backdoor decryption key secure, perhaps I could call him at his office phone using the FBI directory that just got uploaded to the net, and discuss it with him. :-)

      All cleverness aside, maybe you should.....from a payphone......miles away.

  • The type of power Director Comey is asking for sounds like J. Edgar Hoover's [wikipedia.org] wet dream. To keep Comey and future FBI directors from breaking the law like Hoover is suspected of doing, if he succeeds in mandating encryption back doors to allow law enforcement to access suspected criminals' phone I believe Comey's phone should have the same type of encryption back door. Just in case he implements a policy like COINTELPRO, of course.

    How about it, Director? Would you use one of these phones for confidential a
  • Fear tactics combined with power politics and vote getting symbolic lawmaking will nearly always win. Prepare for the backdoored encryption world (if we aren't already there) unless something dramatic changes in how we make laws.
  • To cover up the X-files we need to stop other stuff as well.

  • Pretty soon they won't even be trying with phones; they'll just tap the Internet of Things [theguardian.com] as a vector.

    The Berkman report [harvard.edu] is pretty interesting reading and points out thatdevice encryption can be frustrating, but there's still no default for end-to-end encrypted communication, metadata is plaintext by necessity, and the security of the IoT is something that too few people have worried about.

  • He went on to argue that the phenomenon of communications "going dark" due to more sophisticated technology and wider use of encryption is "overwhelmingly affecting" law enforcement operations

    Basically he is whining because the FBI actually has to, you know, go to a judge and prove sufficient cause for her to grant them a warrant before accessing an individual's property or papers like the 4th amendment says they have to.

    Cry him a river, build him a bridge, and tell him to get over it.

    • This is information that is not available with the warrant. Assuming that the security is as good as advertised (if it weren't, why would the FBI be complaining?) it can only be retrieved by entering the PIN into the phone, and the phone can be set to destroy all its data on ten wrong PIN entries. The data cannot be read without the cooperation of a person who knows the PIN. Last I checked, the US court decisions were showing that being required to turn over a key that would reveal more than what was al

  • Of course Industry will relent and give the government access. They want to keep their special perks.
  • I'm pretty sure that, given sufficient compute time, the NSA can brute-force decrypt anything. They just can analyze all encrypted traffic in real time. No encryption lasts for ever, it only pushes back the time people can see what's inside by a few years.
    • I'm pretty sure that, given sufficient compute time, the NSA can brute-force decrypt anything.

      No. At some point you run out mass energy of this universe [wikipedia.org]. This limit actually happens at a surprisingly low value even using ideal computers, which are many orders of magnitude more efficient than the best we currently. For symmetric key encryption (also know as private key encryption like with the AES, TWOFISH, or SERPENT ciphers) you would run out of mass energy in this universe some where around 270 bits running on conventional computers. Sadly that is just the energy to cycle a 270 bit counter throug

  • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
    Technically they shouldn't read ANYONE'S secrets. Having a secret is not a crime. You're supposed to catch criminals who break the law, not mine people's data and extrapolate to see if they have done anything wrong. Because after all, everyone (including FBI agents) is guilty of something.
  • If every manufacture inserted back doors for the Feds, wouldn't criminals simply hire a few techs to implement one-time pads to use for encryption? In fact, shouldn't anybody that wants to keep data private long-term already be using a one-time pad?
  • by rnturn ( 11092 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @09:03PM (#51475233)

    It's a photo of the world's smallest violin playing a plaintive melody to go along with your constant whining about having to follow the law:

    >>--> . <--<<

  • by rnturn ( 11092 ) on Tuesday February 09, 2016 @09:07PM (#51475253)

    ... Comey was trying to convince everyone that he wasn't obsessing over encryption and not being able to read everyone's private information?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Comey's message:

    - Warrants are too hard;
    - Due Process is too hard;
    - Privacy is too hard;
    - Habeas Corpus is too hard;
    - Miranda warnings are too hard;
    - Encryption is too hard;
    - Court cases are too hard;
    - Evidence is too hard;
    - Probable Cause is too hard;
    - Judges are too hard;
    - Jurisdiction is too hard;
    - Investigation is too hard;

    Etc.

    Damn, law enforcement is hard!

    My response? My grandparents were farmers in the Dirty Thirties. That was hard. Hard enough to destroy good families who didn't deserve to be test

  • You use quotation marks when you're quoting what someone said. When you do stupid shit like the summary title, you end up sounding like a child. Here, let me give you an example of why you can't just make shit up and put it between quotation marks:

    Rdukb gripes, "I'm so sad because I don't think I'll be able to be a big enough asshole today."

    Chances are pretty good (about 60/40) that the submitter never actually said that.
  • "FBI Gripes "We Can't Read Everyone's Secrets" " Good, that's how it should be. "Will the industry relent and allow Government access to data from these devices?" Let's hope not.
  • "This might increase pressure on Apple to loosen the backdoor restrictions. Will the industry relent and allow Government access to data from these devices?"

    I suppose this post may just be click-bait, but there is no "loosening" or "relenting." The question is whether companies sell end-to-end encryption to their customers -- Yes or No. End-to-end encryption is the only real security that the government can't invade. People may disagree about whether citizens in a democracy should have a private sphere that

  • Tough shit FBI.

    What kind of phone did the shooter have that the FBI claims they can't crack, I see sales skyrocketing if this is true.

    IT's not Aplle, Google, etc's job to make LE job's easier.

    The customers want security, it's the phone makers job to provide it. Sounds like they are doing a good job

    (Assuming the story is true and this isn't just the increasingly evil government's attempt to destroy the Constitution and rape american citizen's rights...)

  • Nobody can read the diaries you don't keep or the lists you don't write down. I learned this from spy and mystery novels going back forever. And "'Allo ' Allo": "Listen very carefully, I will say this only once . . ."
  • All else aside, we cannot allow Carte-Blanche for the reason tucked neatly into this sentence:

    but also investigations into other murders, car accidents, drug trafficking and the proliferation of child pornography.

    No matter how much emphasis we place on extra serious crimes like actual terrorism, high-level drug trafficking, and running global networks for child porn, The actual and prevalent use of the technology will be trivial matters like traffic accidents, failing to pick up after your dog, minor curfew violations, etc.

Time-sharing is the junk-mail part of the computer business. -- H.R.J. Grosch (attributed)

Working...